Flying N-reg planes in EU with your FAA license
 

Hi guys,

I am aware that this topic has been brought up multiple times, but they are kinda outdated.

I am a European citizen (Belgium).
I am unable to obtain any EASA license due to medical reasons => No EASA medical of any class. However, I own a valid FAA Class 1 medical.

I am looking into obtaining an FAA PPL in the U.S. and using it to fly in Belgium in an N-Reg plane.

However, I found some posts that from June 2022 it will be forbidden to fly N-Reg planes with your FAA license.
You will need to obtain an EASA license too if you would like to fly with an N-Reg plane in the EU.

This is however not possible for me since I am medically not qualified for EASA licenses.

Is it true that you will need an EASA license in the near future to fly N-reg planes with your FAA license in Europe?

I am looking forward to your reply!

KR,
Andres

Any country enforcing this to the letter would first need to leave the ICAO. American, United, Delta etc aren't going to make their pilots get EASA licences to cross the pond.

Last time I went to renew my EASA medical, the application form did ask about foreign issued medical licenses. I would be surprised if you were allowed to operate any aircraft in EASA jurisdiction with permanent residence in the EU. Especially with a medical disqualification on your record. If your medical disqualification is a serious one, I would imagine that there might be harsh consequences in case something happens.

As I understand it (in the UK, and it was based on the EU), if you are a resident of the UK then you must have a UK license to fly in the UK, even if you have an FAA certificate and an FAA plane.
It isn't that you can't fly FAA planes in the UK with an FAA certificate, but must have an EASA license, but that if you are a resident, then you can't and must, respectively.
Since this was something that came from EASA and only just adopted by the UK right around when Brexit actually happened, I would guess that its that way for the EU.

I'm surprised anyone can hold a valid FAA Class 1 medical but be unable to get an EASA LAPL medical.
By valid I mean having kept the FAA informed of changes in medical condition, which the EASA medical found.
How long before the FAA Class 1 revalidation?

darkroomsource is spot on and usefully succinct. Unlike this which overly complex:

https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-ind...n-UK-airspace/

You should find something similar which will define the situation in Belgium.

rudestuff is right, it is a violation of the Chicago Convention for a state to fail to recognise a pilot licence issued by the state of aircraft registry, except in respect of its own nationals, on an international flight.

Some EASA states offer a light-weight validation, valid for non-commercial operations on any of 28 days in a calendar year, subject to undertaking an acclimatisation flight with an EASA instructor and lodging an application with the relevant competent authority. No EASA medical, exams, or flight tests are required for this particular validation.

Notwithstanding the conflict with the Chicago Convention, the requirement in the Basic Regulation to hold an appropriate EASA or UK licence, as the case may be, does not apply to most Annex I aircraft.

Otherwise, to the extent that the pilot and aircraft operator are distinct, a UK-based US-registered non-Annex I (Part-21 in the UK) aircraft can be flown on a US pilot certificate, including one based on a foreign licence, in EASAland by any pilot regardless of residence status.

(Probably) not for long...

As the holder of an FAA Special Issuance medical, I'm intrigued. No one needs to divulge personal medical information, but I cannot imagine any condition preventing a pilot from getting any EASA medical, that if honestly reported, would still lead to issuance of an FAA First Class Medical.

For someone flying in the US, BasicMed would be an option, but not outside the borders.

A First Class medical downgrades to Second Class and finally Third Class before eventually expiring.

International in N-reg also requires a Restricted Radiotelephone Operators License. More $

The state of registration of the aircraft determines who may fly it, no one else. Of course the determination must meet the minimum ICAO standards. Any member state may file differences for its own purposes but this has no effect on the agreed minimum international standards.

But bear in mind that if you know that your medical standards no longer meet the required standards of the issuing state of your licence then you must declare this to the issuing state. This is irrespective of the expiry date of the medical.

sorry I don’t understand

Otherwise, to the extent that the pilot and aircraft operator are distinct, a UK-based US-registered non-Annex I (Part-21 in the UK) aircraft can be flown on a US pilot certificate, including one based on a foreign licence, in EASAland by any pilot regardless of residence status.

so are you are saying a uk resident can legally fly a n registered experimental /nonpart21 or aircraft without type data cert in the uk

No, The aircraft must be certified as meeting the minimum ICAO standards and be certified as such. EASA is not a state. If you wish to fly through any country in a sub ICAO aircraft you must first gain permission from each state. An example are aeroplanes registered as Microlites. The same applies to the pilots licence which cannot be sub ICAO without first gaining permission. EASA takes no part in the process.

The state of registry decides who may fly the aeroplane in accordance with the ICAO agreements. This is irrespective of the residency of the pilot.

It used to be the case when it was JAR that the FAA would accept a minimum uncorrected vision so long as it corrected with glasses while JAR had a higher limit irrespective of correction. In that case you could get an FAA medical but not a JAR one.

Well, maybe I was not clear enough.

My dream is to go ATP one day. This requires a class 1 medical.
EASA Class 1 is not possible for me due to:

- monocular vision (Exotropia, Amblyopia)
- Refractive error of -6D ( max -2 is allowed.)

In FAA these 2 conditions are not blocking for a Class 1. So I went ahead and went for an FAA Medical.
I am not sure if those 2 conditions are disqualifying for an EASA class 2. (If anyone knows, feel free to tell me, EASA PPL might be achievable then).

If EASA PPL is achievable I can build hours, and experience,.. in EASA and switch to FAA once I go for CPL,...

I never went for an initial EASA medical because the ophthalmologist said I won't make it because I have monocular vision. Maybe I should try and let's see what happens...
Anyways, FAA knows everything they need to know. So Class 1 is valid.

Anyways, sorry for going off-topic, wanted to clear this out,

Regarding the N-Reg planes. I have the impression that there is no such clear rule written out for this question which is very odd to me.

The rules maybe unclear or, more likely, need much pessimistic searching to find, but the proof is in the pudding. You just don't see any advertising for straight rental of N reg in the UK, nor do flying clubs or schools offer such rental. If it were straightforward, legal and easy you'd see options everywhere. There are a dozen or so at our airfield that I would approach tomorrow if it was.

I don't think the rules are that unclear but it is fair to say that like so many rules, which were written for a different time, there can sometimes be difficulties in applying them in todays environment. However, the question was with regard to flying privately and this is not a problem but, you have introduced a commercial scenario which is a very different issue. The FAA will have its own rules for hiring aircraft for profit.